It seems like much of my recent posts were about a solved problem because those in the court have preceded me to seeing the final point here and it was something that shouldn't have been missed. I wonder if it is seeing reasoning as the purpose for the part before the second comma through differentiation between connecting to text and connecting to action in it. If so then I personally need more work to see it clearly. Or it could be neither this nor anything that was close to my thoughts. I also need to see more clearly my own talk in recent posts for why the container thing to which I keep referring and the other thing I mentioned about putting existence over what they said in the part before the second comma.
No comments:
Post a Comment